Anglicans and the Holy Father

[TomUK]

I like most of us here welcome the new Pope, Benedict XVI. However i was contemplating last night about the 'role' the Pope should play in the Anglican Church. Clearly he has no ecclestical authority but i view him as a spiritual guide, a holy man and a source of authority for all Christians. In our weekly Parish intercessions we pray for the Pope alongside the Archbishop of Canterbury, and i think that's right. However, the concept of 'Pope' is one which i fundamentally cannot ascribe to. There are two many doctrines which stem from the Pope that i just cannot agree to. Therefore, i think the question i'm asking is how much authority should we take from the Pope. Is he a source of authority at all? Can he be a source of authority even though a signifcant part of what the Pope is lies contrary to Anglican doctrine?

(if none if that makes sense then say and i'll try to revise it!)

[Cjwinnit]

I think the hierarchy of the Church of England should view the Pope as the rest of the communion views the Archbishop of Canterbury which a few exeptions.

[gitlance]

Well, if we were all unified, then we would have several primates, all of who would be equal. The bishop of Rome, naturally, would be one (as well as Canterbury, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, Washington, etc, etc). However, the bishop of Rome would be given a place of primacy, or primus inter pares with the other bishops. But that would not make him the "head" or "ruler" or "supreme pontiff" of the universal Catholic Church. More than anything, he would be the spokesman who delivered the message that ALL the bishops came into agreement on. None of this papal infallibility -- having all authority vested in one person -- kinda stuff.

[Cjwinnit]

Well, if we were all unified, then we would have several primates, all of who would be equal. The bishop of Rome, naturally, would be one (as well as Canterbury, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, Washington, etc, etc). However, the bishop of Rome would be given a place of primacy, or primus inter pares with the other bishops. But that would not make him the "head" or "ruler" or "supreme pontiff" of the universal Catholic Church. More than anything, he would be the spokesman who delivered the message that ALL the bishops came into agreement on. None of this papal infallibility -- having all authority vested in one person -- kinda stuff.


Exactly. Hey, with that attitude we might be able to talk to the Orthodox. Mind you if we merged we would have to settle on which heirarchies would stay and which would be dissolved, after all the theologocal arguments..

[Bonifatius]

Hi TomUK,

what I like about Anglicans when it comes to the pope is that we generally have a far more relaxed attitude than most Roman Catholics I know. :-)

I see the Pope as a very important Christian leader, a spiritual Father, a patriarch of the Western church, but I do not feel in any way subject to him (if this makes sense, but I think most RC I know would feel exactly the same).

I would be happy if there was a way to change the structure of the Roman Church in a way that would make the Pope a real primus inter pares in the way the ABC is the primas of the Anglican Communion.

This would make way if not for a union of our churches but certainly for a communion.

Greetings
Tom

[julian the apostate]

bonifatius<<I see the Pope as a very important Christian leader, a spiritual Father, a patriarch of the Western church, but I do not feel in any way subject to him (if this makes sense, but I think most RC I know would feel exactly the same).


i was a catholic for 20 yrs give or take, that is exactly the take of the majority of american catholics

the attitudes of the vast majority of american roman catholics are essentially episcopalian
in fact, i am willing to bet, they are a tad more liberal

[Parishoner]

He is the Bishop of Rome. We, as Christians, submit to Christ's authority first and foremost. However, the Pope plays an important role, at least in my life. I do see him as the shepard or the vicar of the Universal Church. I may not agree with everything he says, but I will certainly listen when he speaks. Many of my local fellow parishoners disagree heavily with me though. Which makes anglicanism all that more diverse and unique!

Habemus Papam! -Parishoner

[trooper]

A first among equals brings about disasters like the ABC handling the current crisis in our Church. He isn't solving the problem because he doesn't have the power to. I'm an OC Anglican, and don't have any problem condeding primacy to Rome, just not infalliblity.

[Songspinner]

I may not agree with everything he says, but I will certainly listen when he speaks.

Ohh I like that :amen:

[benedictine]

He is the Bishop of Rome. We, as Christians, submit to Christ's authority first and foremost. However, the Pope plays an important role, at least in my life. I do see him as the shepard or the vicar of the Universal Church. I may not agree with everything he says, but I will certainly listen when he speaks. Many of my local fellow parishoners disagree heavily with me though. Which makes anglicanism all that more diverse and unique!

Habemus Papam! -Parishoner

Same here!

[Colabomb]

I like most of us here welcome the new Pope, Benedict XVI. However i was contemplating last night about the 'role' the Pope should play in the Anglican Church. Clearly he has no ecclestical authority but i view him as a spiritual guide, a holy man and a source of authority for all Christians. In our weekly Parish intercessions we pray for the Pope alongside the Archbishop of Canterbury, and i think that's right. However, the concept of 'Pope' is one which i fundamentally cannot ascribe to. There are two many doctrines which stem from the Pope that i just cannot agree to. Therefore, i think the question i'm asking is how much authority should we take from the Pope. Is he a source of authority at all? Can he be a source of authority even though a signifcant part of what the Pope is lies contrary to Anglican doctrine?

(if none if that makes sense then say and i'll try to revise it!)
He is a Bishop of the Christian Church. He is a Patriarch.

He is not my bishop, nor my patriarch. So he has no authority over me. But I give him the authority which is his.

[TomUK]

He is not my bishop, nor my patriarch. So he has no authority over me. But I give him the authority which is his.

And what authority is that? As you say, we regard him as Bishop of the Christian church and initially i don't see a problem with that, but ultimately the Pope is the holder of a view which, speaking candidly, is heretical to the Anglican Church. I and you respect him deeply but surely he does speak heretically (please bear in mind i'm speaking of my own Anglican perspective and i don't mean to cause offence to my Roman Catholic brothers) and therefore surely to regard him as authoritative, binding or otherwise, is contray to out faith?

[Colabomb]

And what authority is that? As you say, we regard him as Bishop of the Christian church and initially i don't see a problem with that, but ultimately the Pope is the holder of a view which, speaking candidly, is heretical to the Anglican Church. I and you respect him deeply but surely he does speak heretically (please bear in mind i'm speaking of my own Anglican perspective and i don't mean to cause offence to my Roman Catholic brothers) and therefore surely to regard him as authoritative, binding or otherwise, is contray to out faith?
He has authority over those who place themselves under his authority.

[TomUK]

Yes, and so with what authority should an Anglican view him?

[Colabomb]

Yes, and so with what authority should an Anglican view him?
probably none, because an Anglican would not place himself under him.

I was looking at the Catholic Church as a whole when I made that statement, not just Anglicanism.

And of course the thread was about anglicanism... so... I went off topic.

Sorry :)

[Ahazmat]

Hi TomUK,

what I like about Anglicans when it comes to the pope is that we generally have a far more relaxed attitude than most Roman Catholics I know. :-)

I see the Pope as a very important Christian leader, a spiritual Father, a patriarch of the Western church, but I do not feel in any way subject to him (if this makes sense, but I think most RC I know would feel exactly the same).

I would be happy if there was a way to change the structure of the Roman Church in a way that would make the Pope a real primus inter pares in the way the ABC is the primas of the Anglican Communion.

This would make way if not for a union of our churches but certainly for a communion.

Greetings
Tom
OH COME ON! We do not even have communion with all the Episcopal churches. "Hail Mary" come on. There is no way we are going to do that. Ok so I do not like High Church services.

[Dark_Lite]

o_O_o

[Slammer]

Who is the holy father? it's the pope right?

[UberLutheran]

He is the Bishop of Rome. We, as Christians, submit to Christ's authority first and foremost. However, the Pope plays an important role, at least in my life. I do see him as the shepard or the vicar of the Universal Church. I may not agree with everything he says, but I will certainly listen when he speaks. Many of my local fellow parishoners disagree heavily with me though. Which makes anglicanism all that more diverse and unique!

Habemus Papam! -Parishoner

The Pope is the Bishop of Rome. He is the leader of the Roman Catholic branch of the Church; but NOT the head or shepherd or vicar of the Universal Church (only Jesus Christ gets that honor).

As with John Paul II, John Paul I, John XXIIII and Pius VI, I listen when he speaks but don't agree with everything he says, and I am certainly not beholden to do what he says just because he said it.

Moreover, if what the Pope (or any other leader, for that matter) says violates my understanding of the Scriptures (that "Holy Reason" thingie -- which is one of the BIG "plusses" in Anglicanism and the ELCA) -- I'm not going to do what he says.

[Jacob4Jesus]

I look at the pope as an important world figure, especially in the land of Christianity. He obviously is a man of great influence and that is held over a large amount of people.

As an Anglican, though, I don't view him as anything more than the leader of a different church. I have some problems with the conservative views and some of the mistakes the popes have made, but when you're a figure of authority with the whole world watching you, these things are blown out of proportion.

As for me, I pray for the pope because of the sway he has over so many people. I hope he makes sound and just decisions. Besides that, I really don't feel any obligation to him at all and I definitely don't fall in line to his beliefs.

[IowaLutheran]

I view the Pope the same way I view Tony Blair. Americans/British and Lutherans/Catholics parted ways from each other a few centuries ago, and after a time of deep hostility toward each other, we call ourselves friends and allies again, even though we do not always agree. I respect whatever the British Prime Minister has to say, and hope that the President works closely with him (or her in case of Thatcher) so that we can present an allied front against whatever danger poses a threat to our countries. I do not want Britain and the U.S. to ever reunite under the same governmental structure, but I do want our leaders to work closely together, both individually and through NATO or other treaty organizations.

[Albion]

"No source of authority at all."

At least, not outside his diocese and to the RC people who accept him as their "Holy Father."

He's a bishop of a famous and old diocese, but that's about it. Every bishop is a successor to the Apostles, whether it be the bishop of Rome or the bishop of Durham or the bishop of some lonely little diocese in the southern hemisphere.

[Alexis OCA]

bonifatius<<I see the Pope as a very important Christian leader, a spiritual Father, a patriarch of the Western church, but I do not feel in any way subject to him (if this makes sense, but I think most RC I know would feel exactly the same).


i was a catholic for 20 yrs give or take, that is exactly the take of the majority of american catholics

the attitudes of the vast majority of american roman catholics are essentially episcopalian
in fact, i am willing to bet, they are a tad more liberal

I was Catholic for more than 40 years. Your assessment is right on target and just one of the reasons I became Orthodox.

[CSMR]

Moreover, if what the Pope (or any other leader, for that matter) says violates my understanding of the Scriptures (that "Holy Reason" thingie -- which is one of the BIG "plusses" in Anglicanism and the ELCA) -- I'm not going to do what he says.
The exaltation of human reason - natural reason able to come to know God - is one of the flaws of Catholic dogma. That is why Luther rebelled against this positive idea of reason and called reason the enemy of faith. Reason is subject to sin, as are all components of human nature. So it is strange that you locate this unholy "holy reason" in the Lutheran Church rather than in the Catholic church.

[Colabomb]

The exaltation of human reason - natural reason able to come to know God - is one of the flaws of Catholic dogma. That is why Luther rebelled against this positive idea of reason and called reason the enemy of faith. Reason is subject to sin, as are all components of human nature. So it is strange that you locate this unholy "holy reason" in the Lutheran Church rather than in the Catholic church.
No, actually Luther just wanted everyone to listen to his "reasonable" interpretation of Scripture.

Sola Scriptura only places more authority on reason not less.

[CSMR]

No, actually Luther just wanted everyone to listen to his "reasonable" interpretation of Scripture.

Sola Scriptura only places more authority on reason not less.
Understanding scripture is not something that reason is competent to do.
"If God does not open and explain Holy Writ, no one can understand it; it will remain a closed book, enveloped in darkness."
Luther maintained this view consistently.

[Colabomb]

Understanding scripture is not something that reason is competent to do.
"If God does not open and explain Holy Writ, no one can understand it; it will remain a closed book, enveloped in darkness."
Luther maintained this view consistently.

Of course without Guidance of the Holy Spirit, none of us can understand Scripture.

But what has Sola Scriptura led to? Thousands of different denominations with different interpretations of Scripture fighting over who is Right.

I am not a big believer in individualist Reason. But how do we know that Luther's interpretation is correct? He placed his own interpretation of Scripture over 1500 years of Church Tradition.

[Albion]

But what has Sola Scriptura led to? Thousands of different denominations with different interpretations of Scripture fighting over who is Right.

But then again, what did Church Traditions lead to? Answer: all the churches that subscribe to Sola Scriptura PLUS all the churches that split from the Roman Catholic Church and do NOT adhere to Sola Scriptura.

After all, it was the Latin Church's allegedly wrong interpretation of scripture that caused the Reformers to assert Sola Scriptura as a defense against all the doctrinal innovations that came along during the Middle Ages.

[Colabomb]

But then again, what did Church Traditions lead to? Answer: all the churches that subscribe to Sola Scriptura PLUS all the churches that split from the Roman Catholic Church and do NOT adhere to Sola Scriptura.

After all, it was the Latin Church's allegedly wrong interpretation of scripture that caused the Reformers to assert Sola Scriptura as a defense against all the doctrinal innovations that came along during the Middle Ages.
I am not talking about "Church traditions" but Church Tradition. There is a difference.

Yes, in the middle ages, rome was abusive. The Church needed to be brought to its roots. I simply believe that Luther and Calvin etc. failed and instead created something new.

[Albion]

I am not talking about "Church traditions" but Church Tradition. There is a difference.

Not when you get close to it. However, I'll rephrase for you. What good has "Church Tradition" ever accomplished for keeping unity, since you say that believing in the Bible as our ultimate authority on Earth has led to many church splits? The Traditions approach CAUSED all the splits that followed, including the churches that hold to Sola Scriptura and those that don't. It, in other words, did more to disunite than a return to the Bible.

IYes, in the middle ages, rome was abusive. The Church needed to be brought to its roots. I simply believe that Luther and Calvin etc. failed and instead created something new.

How can the Bible be "new?" They merely called for us to return to our roots and set aside all the Thomistic and other philosophical speculation that had been lately passing for truth on a par with Scripture. That's exactly what both Luther and Calvin contended for. Even the "Church Tradition" you are inclined towards had said nothing about many of the items of faith that the Reformers needed to root out until just a couple of centuries before the Reformation. That's not Tradition even by the definition and standards of Tradition.